Full text of "Montana voter's guide to the ... primary election"

MONTANA
STATE

This "cover" page added by the Internet Archive for formatting purposes

324.786

Montana

Voter's Guide to the

1992 Primary Election

Inside

Page 2

Message from the Secretary

of State

Page 3

Offices on the ballot

Where to read or sign an
initiative petition

Pages 4-6

Summary of Legislative
Referendum 109

Pages 7 - 10
Summary of Legislative
Referendum 110

Pages 11 - 15
Complete text of ballot
proposals

Back cover

What to do at the polls

How to apply for an
absentee ballot

Registering to vote

ONE VOTE COULD
MAKE THE
DIFFERENCE

WILL

YOURS?

STATE D0CUWENT5 COtlECTIO;.
r>IOV30l99?

MONTANA STATE .UJRARV

151S e 6th AVI-
HELENA, MONTANA 596SQ

Published by Secretary of State Mike Cooney

State Capitol - Helena, Montana 59620

SECRETARY OF STATE

STATE OF MONTANA

Mike Cooney ^^^^^Sf Montana State Capitol

Secretary of State ^^^^^ Helena, MX 59620

Dear Montana Voter:

This June you will have the opportunity to vote on two ballot proposals during the primary
election. I hope this informational guide will prove useful as you consider these measures.

The proposals have been placed on the ballot by the legislature for the people of Montana to
decide. If these measures are approved by voters on June 2, they will become state law.

This pamphlet contains information on what the ballot issues are, how voting works, and
how to request an absentee ballot. It also explains how to register to vote if you are not
already registered.

Remember that the deadline for registering to vote for the June 2 primary is May 4; for
the November 3 general election, the registration deadline is October 5.

Montana's voter slogan this year, written by Kristy Sterett of Daniels County, is "One vote
could make the difference - Will it be yours?" It's a principle that Montanans have long
followed.

The Big Sky State has an outstanding history of citizen participation in government,
consistently ranking as one of the top states in the nation in terms of voter turnout. Be a part
of this great tradition and vote on June 2!

SilJ^rely, , y^ /^7^

Reception: (406)444-2034 - Business Services Bureau: 444-3665 - Elections Bureau: 444-4732
Administrative Rules Bureau: 444-2055 - Records Management Bureau (1320 Bozeman Avenue): 444-2716

Fax: 444-3976

Offices on the ballot in 1992

The primary allows the political parties of the states to choose their nominees to run in the November
general election. In the primary you may not "split your ticket" and vote for candidates from different
parties; you must vote only one party's ballot. However, in the general election, you are free to vote for
any candidate.

Partisan offices up for election this year include:

- President of the United States (four-year term)

- Governor and Lieutenant Governor (four-year term)

- U.S. Representative (two-year term)

- Secretary of State (four-year term)

- Attorney General (four-year term)

- State Auditor (four-year term)

- three Public Service Commissioners (Second, Fourth, and Fifth Districts, four-year terms)

- State Superintendent of Public Instruction (four-year term)

All one-hundred state House seats are up for election as well twenty-six state Senate seats. Terms for
legislators in the House are two-years and four-years for Senators.

Candidates for the Supreme Court or District Court do not have any party affiliation. Nonpartisan offices
up for election this year include:

- Chief Justice of the Supreme Court (eight-year term)

- two Supreme Court Justices (seat One, six-year term and seat Three, eight-year term)

In addition, District Court judges in many counties are up for election. District Court judges have six-year
terms, except for those elected to fill an unexpired term caused by a vacancy.

Many county elected officials also will be appearing on the ballot this year.

Explanation of ballot issues

At this election, you will vote on two measures that have been placed on the ballot by the Fifty-second
Legislature. Issues referred by the Legislature appear on the ballot without the need of a petition.

Initiative Petitions

Montana voters may seek changes in the Montana Constitution or state law through the initiative process.
Petitions are drawn up, submitted to Legislative Council and then to the Secretary of State for approval of
form, and circulated throughout the state. If the petition receives enough signatures, as determined by law,
the proposed measure is placed on the ballot for a vote by the people.

For an issue to be placed on the November 3 General Election ballot, petitions must be submitted to the
appropriate county election administrator no later than June 19. If you would like to sign or examine a
petition that is being circulated, contact your local county election administrator who has all such petitions
on file.

Legislative Referendum 109

HOW THE ISSUE APPEARS ON THE BALLOT

Legislative Referendum No. 109
An act referred by the Legislature

AN ACT IMPOSING A 2-MILLLEVY UPON THE
TAXABLE VALUE OF ALL REAL AND PER-
SONAL PROPERTY SUBJECT TO TAXATION IN
MONTANA FOR THE SUPPORT AND MAINTE-
NANCE OF VOCATIONAL AND TECHNICAL
EDUCATION; REPLACING REVENUE FROM THE
SCHOOL DISTRICT LEVY FOR VOCATIONAL-
TECHNICAL CENTERS; SUBMITTING THE LEVY
TO THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS OF MONTANA;
PROVIDING FOR THE RESTRICTED USE OF THE
STATEWIDE MILL LEVY AT COMMUNITY
COLLEGES; AMENDING SECTIONS 15-10-402,
15-10-412, 20-15-311, AND 20-16-205, MCA; RE-
PEALING SECTION 20-16-207, MCA; AND PRO-
VIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE AND AN APPLI-
CABILITY DATE.

The Legislature submitted this proposal for a vote. It
would impose an annual levy of two mills upon the
taxable value of all real and personal property subject to
taxation in the state of Montana. The revenue generated
from the 2-mill levy would be allocated to the board of

regents and could be used only for the support and
maintenance of vocational and technical education in
Montana. If passed, the levy would apply to tax years
beginning after December 31, 1992.

FISCAL NOTE: Assuming no change in market or
taxable values for the State of Montana, the 2-mill levy
would raise $6,460,000 for the 1994-95 fiscal biennium.

FOR imposing a levy of 2 mills for the suppon and
maintenance of vocational and technical education.

AGAINST imposing a levy of 2 mills for the support
and maintenance of vocational and technical education.

The Attorney General wrote the ballot title and explana-
tory statement above, as required by law. The fiscal note
was prepared for the Attorney General by the Office of
Budget and Program Planning.

The arguments and the rebuttals for and against the ballot
proposal are printed here exactly as written by the commit-
tees preparing the arguments and rebuttals.

Argument FOR Legislative Referendum 109

In 1987, the Montana legislature transferred responsibil-
ity for governance of the five vocational technical cen-
ters from the local school districts of Billings, Butte,
Great Falls, Helena and Missoula IQ the Board of Re-
gents of Higher Education. At that point in time, the VT
Centers functioned as separate and unconnected institu-
tions with no mechanism for overall coordination of
activities or resources. Since 1987 when they became
components of higher education, significant progress
has been made toward achievement of the Regents' goal
to create a modem postsecondary system of vocational
technical education for the citizens of Montana. To-
gether with the senior-level institutions and the commu-
nity colleges, the vocational technical centers offer

Montanans a broad array of educational and career
choices.

The five vocational technical centers now comprise a
statewide system of education for those adults who
have workplace readiness and employment as their
immediate objective. As the only public postsecondary
institutions which are exclusively dedicated to the
preparation of graduates for employment, the Vo
Tech System provides affordable insu-uctional programs
in such areas as health sciences, business management,
information processing and accounting technology, as
well as various industry-related occupations such as

Ar gument FOR Lcgi^Vative Refer endtiM 109 (continued)

drafting, interior design, culinary arts, aircraft mainte-
nance, and automotive technology. In addition to one
and two year programs, the Centers offer opportuni-
ties for working adults to return to school for up-
grading or "re-tooling" their skills through short-
term, intensive courses designed to meet the continu-
ally changing needs of a technology-driven work
environment. They are fully accredited by the North-
west Association of Colleges and Schools, and have
been authorized by the Board of Regents to grant certifi-
cates and associate degrees to individuals who success-
fully complete educational programs.

The three public community colleges located in
Kalispell, Glendive and Miles City provide both voca-
tional technical educational programs of one and
two years in length as well as courses which are
designed for transfer to senior-level institutions. Under
the guidance of the Board of Regents, the three commu-
nity colleges and five vocational technical centers have
established a collaborative relationship in matters re-
lated to program development and information sharing.

The Center for Vocational Education Research, Cur-

riculum and Personnel Development at Northern Mon-
tana College serves as a data collection and dissemina-
tion center which provides information to both second-
ary and postsecondary educators of Montana.

All revenue generated by this measure will be allocated
to the Board of Regents to be used solely for the support
and maintenance of postsecondary vocational technical
education. Underfunded for at least a decade, this vital
component of higher education has as its greatest sig-
nificance the fact that Montanans who complete voca-
tional technical programs gain the competencies they
need in order to escape from the ranks of the unem-
ployed and social welfare to a life of increased security
and well being. Modem technological education re-
quires up-to-date equipment and faculty with mastery of
state of the art information. If passed. Referendum 109
will provide a measure of stable funding on behalf of
these vitally important instructional programs and the
Montanans who take advantage of them.

This PROPONENTS' argument and rebuttal were
prepared by Senator J.D. Lynch, Representative
Edward Grady, and Brady J. Vardemann

Argument AGAINST Legislative Referendum 109

Legislative Referendum 109 asks the voters of Montana
to approve an amendment to Initiative 105, the property
tax freeze, approved by the voters in 1986. This amend-
ment would provide for a tax increase of two mills levied
on all taxable property in the state for the support and
maintenance of vocational and technical education.

We urge you to vote no on this referendum for the
following reasons:

1. Property taxes are already too high in Montana. In
1989 our property taxes were 5th highest in the nation as
a percentage of personal income and were more than
$100 per capita above the national average.

2. The vocational-technical centers (there are five) are
an integral part of the higher education system in Mon-
tana. The funding of these centers, as well as funding of
units of the University System, is a responsibility of the
Montana Legislature and should be paid from state, not
local sources of revenue. Property owners in counties

where Vo-Tech centers are located are currently paying
1.5 mills for support of the centers. If this referendum
passes, property owners in the five counties containing
Vo-Tech centers will continue to pay the 1.5 mill levy
as well as the new two mill levy.

,3. The property tax has traditionally been reserved as a
revenue source for our local schools and county and city
governments. At present state revenue is short and the
state legislature is looking at the property tax as a source
for paying for state programs. If this trend is allowed to
continue, it will harm not only the property taxpayers of
Montana but ultimately local schools and local govern-
ments as state government usurps their primary revenue
source.

4. Our final argument against this two mill property tax
increase is that it is unlikely that it will result in increased
funding for vocational-technical education in Montana.
The higher education system in Montana is a part of the
state general fund. The general fund, which has many

Argument AGAINST Legislative Referendum 109 (continued)

sources of tax revenue, pays for general state govern-
ment operations. The Governor's office, the Depart-
ments of Commerce, Revenue, Administration, Justice,
Family Services, Health and Rehabilitative Services,
and Institutions, are all part of the general fund as are all
legislative agencies. The likely result, if the two mill
levy is approved, is that state taxes which are currently
allocated to Vo-Tech education will be withdrawn and
used for other pressing purposes. The property owners
of Montana will pay several million dollars per year in
additional taxes which will supplement the state general
fund, not vocational-technical education. We do not

believe that taxes collected from this levy will be used to
increase the funding of Vo-Tech in Montana. We be-
lieve it will be used to replace state dollars which would
be withdrawn and spent on other agencies.

For these reasons we encourage you to vote no on
legislative referendum 109.

The OPPONENTS' argument and rebuttal were
prepared by Senator Thomas F, Keating, Represen-
tative William E. Boharski, and Dennis M. Burr.

PROPONENTS^ rebuttal of the argument opposing Legislative Referendum 109

The vocational technical centers are indeed an integral
part of the higher education system in Montana. Yet,
unlike the four year institutions, there is no statewide
levy (such as the 6 mill levy voted on behalf of the six
colleges and universities) to provide these institutions
with a stable revenue stream. Instead, their budgets are
subject to renegotiation through the legislative process
every two years - a situation which impairs their ability
to plan instructional programming on a long range basis
to meet the projected needs of business and industry in
their communities and on a statewide basis.

Whether or not the legislature reduces the general fund
appropriated to the vocational technical centers (if the 2
mill levy is adopted) is a decision to be made through the
democratic legislative process. The Board of Regents
and the Commissioner of Higher Education would op-
pose such reductions. However, the fact remains that the
revenue generated by the 2 mill levy would be a source
of funds on which the vocational centers, the commu-
nity colleges, and Northern Montana College could
depend in order to provide employment-related pro-
grams so badly needed by Montanans.

OPPONENTS^ rebuttal of the argument supporting Legislative Referendum 109

Those who oppose the two mill property tax levy do not
question the value of vocational-technical education in
Montana.

Now that the vo-tech centers are part of higher educa-
tion, they should be financed by the state legislature.
Their funding should not come from property taxes as it
did when the centers were funded and controlled by
local high school districts across the state.

If Referendum 109 passes, property taxes will increase.
However, there is no guarantee that the vo-tech centers
will receive any increase in funds. State support will be
withdrawn from these units and replaced with this new
property tax.

The legislature already uses this questionable process
with the 1.5 mill levy which is paid by residents in the

counties where vo-tech centers are located. The appro-
priation bill passed by the 1991 legislature contains the
following language: "The CommissionerofHigherEdu-
cation may transfer millage collections among the cen-
ters. Total revenue received from the 1.5 mill levy that
exceeds $965,005 in fiscal 1992, and $981,480 in fiscal
1993, is appropriated to the Office of the Commissioner
of Higher Education for distribution to the vocational-
technical centers and must result in a general fund
reversion of a like amount ." (Emphasis added)

Property tax revenue is already being used to replace
general fund appropriations to the vo-tech centers. The
same procedure will likely be used if Referendum 109
passes. We urge Montanans to show their disapproval of
higher propeny taxes and this cynical budget maneuver
by voting no on Referendum 109.

The complete text of LR-109 is on Page 11

Legislative Referendum 110

HOW THE ISSUE APPEARS ON THE BALLOT

Legislative Referendum No. 1 10
An act referred by the Legislature

AN ACT CREATING A TREASURE STATE EN-
DOWMENT PROGRAM; CREATING THE TREA-
SURE STATE ENDOWMENT FUND WITHIN
THE COAL SEVERANCE TAX TRUST FUND;
PROVIDING THAT ONE-HALF OF THE ANNUAL
REVENUE THAT WOULD OTHERWISE BE
DEPOSITED IN THE COAL SEVERANCE TAX
PERMANENT FUND BE DEPOSITED IN THE
ENDOWMENT FUND; AUTHORIZING THE USE
OF INTEREST FROM THE ENDOWMENT FUND
FOR GRANTS, DEBT RETIREMENT, AND
LOANS TO LOCAL GOVERNMENTS; TRANS-
FERRING $10 MILLION FROM THE PERMA-
NENT FUND TO THE ENDOWMENT FUND;
EXPANDING THE COAL SEVERANCE TAX
BOND PROGRAM; SUBMITTING THE CRE-
ATION OF THE PROGRAM TO THE QUALIFIED
ELECTORS OF MONTANA; AND AMENDING
SECTIONS 17-5-701 AND 17-5-703, MCA.

This proposal was submitted by the Legislature for a
vote. The Montana Constitution requires that 50% of
coal severance taxes be dedicated to a trust fund. This
measure would create an endowment fund within the
permanent trust which, for twenty years, would capture
1/2 of all money flowing into the trust that is not
otherwise allocated by the Legislature. The endowment
fund's principal could not be spent, but its earnings
would be used to provide financial assistance for tar-
geted local government infrastructure projects. Project

proposals would be submitted by local governments,
reviewed by the Governor, and recommended for legis-
lative approval.

FISCAL NOTE: This measure redirects coal severance
tax firom the permanent trust to a treasure state endow-
ment trust. Trust interest will partially finance local
governments' capital facilities and improvements. The
interest earned in 1994 will be approximately $1.5
million and will increase to $18.5 million by the year
2013.

FOR creating the treasure state endowment fund to
provide local governments coal severance tax trust fund
interest for water, sewer, solid waste, and bridge projects.

AGAINST creating the treasure state endowment fund
to provide local governments coal severance tax trust
fund interest for water, sewer, solid waste, and bridge
projects.

The Attorney General wrote the ballot title and explana-
tory statement above, as required by law. The fiscal note
was prepared for the Attorney General by the Office of
Budget and Program Planning.

The arguments and the rebuttals for and against the ballot
proposal are printed here exactly as written by the commit-
tees preparing the arguments and rebuttals.

Argument FOR Legislative Referendum 110

GENERAL INFORMATION

Montanans need our cities, towns and counties to im-
prove their essential infrastructure -- sewer, water, and
solid waste disposal systems and bridges — by either
repairing them or building them anew.

Montanans need jobs.

And business needs solid infrastructure on which to
build.

The Treasure State Endowment addresses all of these
important needs.

This Endowment will give our local governments state
matching funds for infrastructure improvements, create
construction jobs, and build a better business base.

The Treasure State Endowment does all that without
busting the state's Coal Tax Trust Fund.

Today governments at all levels are finding themselves
and taxpayers broke. Together, we in Montana must
find a way to meet our critical infrastructure needs
without increasing our state taxes or stealing money
from the state's one hope for fiscal stability -- our Coal
Tax Trust.

Instead of breaking the integrity of the Coal Tax Trust,
as Governor Stephens' Big Sky Dividend proposes, the
Treasure State Endowment spends only a portion of the
interest income from the Coal Tax Trust.

It does so by setting aside an initial $10 million plus
1/2 of the coal taxes going into the Trust over the next
20 years and forever dedicating the interest income
from that set-aside to infrastructure.

COMPARING THE TREASURE STATE EN-
DOWMENT TO GOVERNOR STEPHENS'
BIG SKY DIVIDEND BILL

A government farsighted enough to have a Trust Fund
must resist the temptation to just go out and blow the
dough.

The governor's program
spends our Trust Fund,
forgetting the future.

The Endowment does not.

Infrastructure problems will be with us forever
need a permanent, not a temporary, solution.

The governor's program
ends after just 10 years.

The Endowment helps
your local government
permanently.

Every dollar of Coal Tax Trust interest spent on local
infrastructure is a dollar that would otherwise go to the
state's general fund, so the state is pressed to look for
replacement revenue.

Over the next 10 years the
governor's program would
cost the general fund ap-
proximately $88.5 mil-
lion.

The Endowment would
cost only $54.8 million,
saving the taxpayers over
$33 million.

Infrastructure costs big money ~ Montana already has
a $400 million backlog of local projects.

The governor's program
will provide only $190
million before it ends.

The Endowment will fund
many more projects, pro-
viding at least $337 mil-
lion over 30 years, $517
million over 40 years,
$697 million over 50
years, etc.

Government binge spending, like Governor Stephens'
scheme, invites "pork barrel" politics.

The governor's program
would allow the Gover-
nor alone to decide who
should get the money.

The Endowment makes
the governor and the leg-
islature agree on the
projects to be funded -
out in the open, above the
table.

CONCLUSION

Governor Stephens' Big Sky Dividend is bad public
policy.

The Treasure State Endowment, however, is a far-
sighted and flexible, but fiscally prudent, way to meet
our local governments' infrastructure needs.

Ar gumenf FOR LefisTiHWl^eyefeMum 110 (continued

For jobs, a better base for business growth, repair of our
infrastructure, and for a long term, workable solution,
you should vote FOR Legislative Referendum 1 10.

This PROPONENTS' argument and rebuttal were
prepared by President of the Senate Joseph P.
Mazurek, Speaker of the House Hal Harper, and
Representative Jessica Stickney.

IVr gumenfr AGAINST Legislative Referendum 110

The Treasure State Endowment Fund (TSEF) will prove
totally inadequate in addressing the $400 million of
improvements needed by Montana communities to re-
pair their water, sewer, solid waste, and bridge prob-
lems. In spite of taking $10 million from the permanent
Coal Trust Fund, 1/2 of available Coal Severance Tax
revenue each year, and the issuing of Coal Severance
Tax bonds for additional money to loan to local govern-
ments, this program will have little, if any, impact on
our $400 million problem.

Raiding Coal Tax Trust - Presendy, interest income
from the Trust is allocated to the School Foundation
Program and General Fund. This income, at its current
level, is sorely needed. By transferring $10 million from
the Trust to TSEF, other taxes will have to be raised to
compensate for the loss to our current level of revenue.

Selecting Projects - This program calls for the Depart-
ments of Commerce and Natural Resources and Conser-
vation to submit proposed projects to the Governor, who
will review and submit a list for legislative approval.
Then, the list will be modified to reflect the political
realities of past elections and a corjsensus among 5 1 % of
the legislators. The small communities, who need the
most help, will suffer because of their lack of represen-
tation in the legislature.

Funding - In 1991, the Coal Severance Tax (CST)
generated $19.5 million for the trust fund, $5 million of
which is allocated to the Clean Coal Technology Fund,
and up to $3.5 million could be required for water and
school bonds. This would leave $1 1 million, one-iialf of
which would go to the TSEF. That, in turn, would only
yield $0.5 million in interest for funding actual construc-
tion during the first year.

The referendum also authorizes the legislature to issue
more CST bonds to increase the amount of initial funds.
As the bonding capacity of the Fund is limited, this
means the existing Water Development Program will
have to compete with TSEF for those limited dollars. As
this program fails to specify the repayment source for
the CST bonds, it would be reasonable to assume that the
local communities would have to pay.

There is no guarantee that TSEF will be a source of
revenue forever. By a simple majority, the next legisla-
ture could divert this money to other programs. In view
of how the legislature has worked to eliminate the tax
limitations imposed by 1-105, this is a very real threat.

Summary - The TSEF will simply not provide the
money necessary to address the infrastructure needs of
our local communities. Also, the referendum fails to
point out the negative effect that TSEF will have on
other existing funds; the taxes required to replace dislo-
cated funds; and the additional local taxes needed to
participate in the program.

There are better and more effective ways of addressing
Montana's infrastructure problems. We must invest our
coal tax revenue wisely and effectively to solve today's
problems for the benefit of future generations. This
referendum is not the right answer for Montana.

Vote NO.

This OPPONENTS' argument and the rebuttal were
prepared by Senator Larry Tveit, Representative
H.S. "Sonny" Hanson, and Robert L. Sanderson.

PROPONENTS^ rebuttal of the argument opposin g Legislative Referendum 110

The opponents' contentions against the Treasure State Endowment don't hold water.

OPPONENTS' CONTENTIONS
The Endowment won't do enough to impact our $400
Million problem.

The Endowment will raid the Coal Tax Trust, costing
the state's general fund.

The project selection process will be unfair to small
communities.

There will be costs to local governments under the
bonding program.

There are better ways to deal with our infrastructure

problem.

THE FACTS
The amount of state matching funds from the Endow-
ment over the next 1 years can fund up to $ 1 50 Million
in infrastructure projects and, being permanent, it will
provide funds for years to come.

The Endowment, without breaking the Coal Tax Trust,
will cost the general fund $33 Million less than the
Governor's proposal.

The same process is used in the state's water bond
program and virtually all of the funded projects are from
small towns and rural areas.

As with the Governor's program, local governments
will participate financially in all projects. This is not a
state giveaway, it is a pannership between the state and
local governments.

Opponents have proposed no other specific solutions.
The Endowment provides the best solutions in the most
cost effective manner.

The legislature may eliminate the program in the future. History shows that when the people vote in a law by

referendum the legislature won't tamper with it.

Your strong passage of this referendum is your insurance policy that the Treasure State Endow-
ment program will provide you the promised benefits for years to come.

OPPONENTS^ rebuttal of the argument supporting Legislative Referendum 110

The proponents of LR-1 10 (TSEF) continue to rely on Yes, the BSD does end after ten years. But it gets more

scare tactics by employing comparisons to a program
that does not exist; overly inflating financial projections
as to how their proposal will perform; and blatant
misrepresenting how the Coal Tax Fund will be im-
pacted.

Contrary to what the proponentsof TSEF would like the
voters to believe, the Big Sky Dividend Constitutional
Amendment (BSD) will not allow the Governor to
determine the projects; that is left to the legislature to
decide.

The BSD also does not "bust the Trust." The only money
that the legislature can spend under BSD is the new coal
tax revenue collected each year. None of the $508
million already in the fund can be touched as part of the
BSD, but it will be under TSEF.

done in ten than TSEF can do in twenty. And with $400
million of existing problems, we cannot wait twenty
years to get started, as the problems will only increase.

The proponents of LR-110 also claim "TSEF is for-
ever." In fact, forever is only as long as the legislature
wants it be. In view of how quick they were to ignore the
intent of 1-105, don't expect "forever" to be too long.

TSEF proposes to create another government loan pro-
gram. The Big Sky Dividend, on the other hand, pro-
vides the kind of suppon that will save taxpayers money,
not cost them more. It provides the needed assistance
now.

The complete text of LR-110 is on page 13.

The Complete Text of LEGISLATIVE REFERENDUM 109

AN ACT IMPOSING A 2-MILL LEVY UPON THE TAXABLE
VALUE OF ALL REAL AND PERSONAL PROPERTY
SUBJECT TO TAXATION IN MONTANA FOR THE
SUPPORT AND MAINTENANCE OF VOCATIONAL AND
TECHNICAL EDUCATION; REPLACING REVENUE FROM
THE SCHOOL DISTRICT LEVY FOR VOCATIONAL-
TECHNICAL CENTERS; SUBMITTING THE LEVY TO THE
QUALIFIED ELECTORS OF MONTANA; PROVIDING FOR
THE RESTRICTED USE OF THE STATEWIDE MILL LEVY
AT COMMUNITY COLLEGES; AMENDING SECTIONS 15-
10-402, 15-10-412, 20-15-311, AND 20-16-205, MCA;
REPEALING SECTION 20-16-207, MCA; AND PROVIDING
AN EFFECTIVE DATE AND AN APPLICABILITY DATE.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE
OF MONTANA:

Section 1. Tax levy for Tocational and technical education.

(1) There is levied annually upon the taxable value of all real and
personal property subject to taxation in the state of Montana 2
mills for the support and maintenance of vocational and technical
education. The revenue from the 2-mill levy must be distributed
as follows:

(a) not more than 4% of the total revenue collected from the
mill levy to the center for vocational education research,
curriculum, and personnel development at northern Montana
college io Havre; and

(b) the remainder to the vocational-technical center system and
community college districts of Montana.

(2) The funds raised from the 2-mill levy are allocated to the
board of regents for the purposes set forth in subsection (1).

Section 2. Section 15-10-402, MCA, is amended to read:
"15-10-402. Property tax limited to 1986 levels. (1) Except as
provided in subsections (2) and (3) through (4) . the amount of
taxes levied on property described in 15-6-133, 15-6-134, 15-6-
136, 15-6-142, and 15-6-144 may not, for any taxing
jurisdiction, exceed the amount levied for taxable year 1986.

(2) The limitation contained in subsection (1) does not apply to
levies for rural improvement districts. Title 7, chapter 12, part
21; special improvement districts. Title 7, chapter 12, part 41;
elementary and high school districts. Title 20; or bonded
indebtedness.

(3) The limitation contained in 15-10-411. 15-10-412. or
subsection (1) of this section does not apply to the 2-mill levy
imposed in [section 11 for the support and maintenance of
vocational and technical education.

f^(4) New construction or improvements to or deletions from
property described in subsection (1) are subject to taxation at
1986 levels.

(4)(5} As used in this section, the "amount of taxes levied" and
the "amount levied" mean the actual dollar amount of taxes
imposed on an individual piece of property, notwithstanding an
increase or decrease in value due to inflation, reappraisal,
adjustments in the percentage multiplier used to convert appraised
value to taxable value, changes in the number of mills levied, or
increase or decrease in the value of a mill. "

Section 3. Section 15-10-412, MCA, is amended to read:

"15-10-412. Property tax limited to 1986 levels ~ clariricatioii
— extension to all property classes. Section 15-10-402 is
interpreted and clarified as follows:

(1) The limitation to 1986 levels is extended to apply to all
classes of property described Ln Title 15, chapter 6, part 1.

(2) The limitation on the amount of taxes levied is interpreted to
mean that, except as otherwise provided in this section, the actual
tax liability for an individual property is capped at the dollar
amount due in each taxing unit for the 1986 tax year. In tax
years thereafter, the property must be taxed in each taxing unit
at the 1986 cap or the product of the taxable value and mills
levied, whichever is less for each taxing unit, except Ln a taxing
unit that levied a tax in tax years 1983 through 1985 but did not
levy a tax in 1986, in which case the actual tax liability for an
individual property is capped at the dollar amount due in that
taxing unit for the 1985 tax year.

(3) The limitation on the amount of taxes levied does not mean
that no fiirther increase may be made in the total taxable
valuation of a taxing unit as a result of:

(a) annexation of real property and improvements into a taxing
unit;

(b) construction, expansion, or remodeling of improvements;

(d) subdivision of real property;

(e) reclassification of property;

(f) increases in the amount of production or the value of
production for property described in 15-6-131 or 15-6-132;

(g) transfer of property from tax-exempt to taxable status;
(h) revaluations caused by:

(i) cyclical reappraisal; or

(ii) expansion, addition, replacement, or remodeling of

improvements; or

(i) increases in property valuation pursuant to 15-7-111(4)

through (8) in order to equalize property values annually.

(4) The limitation on the amount of taxes levied does not mean
that no further increase may be made in the taxable valuation or
in the actual tax liability on individual property in each class as
a result of:

(a) a revaluation caused by:

(i) construction, expansion, replacement, or remodeling of
improvements that adds value to the property; or
(ii) cyclical reappraisal;

(b) transfer of property into a taxing unit;

(d) increases in the amount of production or the value of
production for property described in 15-6-131 or 15-6-132;

(e) annexation of the individual property into a new taxing unit;

(f) conversion of the individual property from tax-exempt to
taxable status; or

(g) increases in property valuation pursuant to 15-7-111(4)
through (8) in order to equalize property values annually.

(5) Property in classes four, twelve, and fourteen is valued
according to the procedures used in 1986, including the
designation of 1982 as the base year, until the reappraisal cycle
beginning January 1, 1986, is completed and new valuations are
placed on the tax rolls and a new base year designated, if the
property is:

(a) new construction;

(b) expanded, deleted, replaced, or remodeled improvements;

The Complete Text of LEGISLATIVE REFERENDUM 109 (continued)

(d) property converted from tax-exempt to taxable status.

(6) Property described in subsections (5)(a) through (5)(d) that
is not class four, class twelve, or class fourteen property is
valued according to the procedures used in 1986 but is also
subject to the dollar cap in each taxing unit based on 1986 mills
levied.

(7) The limitation on the amount of taxes, as clarified in this
section, is intended to leave the property appraisal and valuation
methodology of the department of revenue intact. Determinations
of county classifications, salaries of local government officers,
and all other matters in which total taxable valuation is an
integral component are not affected by 15-10-401 and 15-10-402
except for the use of taxable valuation in fixing tax levies. In
fixing tax levies, the taxing units of local government may
anticipate the deficiency in revenues resulting from the tax
limitations in 15-10-401 and 15-10-402, while understanding that
regardless of the amount of mills levied, a taxpayer's liability
may not exceed the dollar amount due in each taxing unit for the
1986 tax year unless:

(a) the taxing unit's taxable valuation decreases by 5% or more
from the 1986 tax year. If a taxing unit's taxable valuation
decreases by 5% or more from the 1986 tax year, it may levy
additional mills to compensate for the decreased taxable
valuation, but in no case may the mills levied exceed a number
calculated to equal the revenue from property taxes for the 1986
tax year in that taxing unit.

(b) a levy authorized under Title 20 raised less revenue in 1986
than was raised in either 1984 or 1985, in which case the taxing
unit may, after approval by the voters in the taxing unit, raise
each year thereafter an additional number of mills but may not
levy more revenue than the 3-year average of revenue raised for
that purpose during 1984, 1985, and 1986;

(c) a levy authorized in 50-2-1 1 1 that was made in 1986 was for
less than the number of mills levied in either 1984 or 1985, in
which case the taxing unit may, after approval by the voters in
the taxing unit, levy each year thereafter an additional number of
mills but may not levy more than the 3 -year average number of
mills levied for that purpose during 1984, 1985, and 1986.

(8) The limitation on the amount of taxes levied does not apply
to the following levy or special assessment categories, whether
or not they are based on commitments made before or after
approval of 15-10-401 and 15-10-402:

(a) rural improvement districts;

(b) special improvement districts;

(d) city street maintenance districts;

(e) tax increment financing districts;

(0 the satisfaction of judgments against a taxing unit;

(g) street lighting assessments;

(h) revolving funds to support any categories specified in this

subsection (8);

(i) levies for economic development authorized pursuant to 90-5-

112(4); aad

(j) the statewide levy for vocational and technical education

authorized in [section 11: and

(k) elementary and high school districts.

(9) The limitation on the amount of taxes levied does not apply

in a taxing unit if the voters in the taxing unit approve an
increase in tax liability following a resolution of the governing
body of the taxing unit containing:

(a) a finding that there are insufficient fiuds to adequately
operate the taxing unit as a result of 15-10-401 and 15-10-402;

(b) an explanation of the nature of the financial emergency;

(d) a statement that applicable fund balances are or by the end
of the fiscal year will be depleted;

(e) a finding that there are no alternative sources of revenue;

(f) a summary of the alternatives that the governing body of the
taxing unit has considered; and

(g) a statement of the need for the increased revenue and how
it will be used.

(10) (a) The limitation on the amount of taxes levied does not
apply to levies required to address the funding of relief of
suffering of inhabitants caused by famine, conflagration, or other
public calamity.

(b) The limitation set forth in this chapter on the amount of
taxes levied does not apply to levies to support a city-county
board of health as provided in Title 50, chapter 2, if the
governing bodies of the taxing units served by the board of health
determine, after a public hearing, that public health programs
require funds to ensure the public health. A levy for the support
of a local board of health may not exceed the 5-mill limit
established in 50-2-1 1 1 .

(11) The limitation on the amount of taxes levied by a taxing
jurisdiction subject to a statutory maximum mill levy does not
prevent a taxing jurisdiction from increasing its number of mills
beyond the statutory maximum mill levy to produce revenue
equal to its 1986 revenue.

(12) The limitation on the amount of taxes levied does not apply
to a levy increase to repay taxes paid under protest in accordance
with 15-1-402."

Section 4. Section 20-15-311, MCA, is amended to read:
"20-15-311. Funding sources. The annual operating budget of
a conununity college district sbaH must be financed from the
following sources:

(1) the estimated revenues to be realized from student tuition
and fees, except those related to community service courses as
defined by the board of regents;

(2) a mandatory mill levy on the conununity college district;

(3) the 1-mill adult education levy authorized under provisions
of 20-15-305;

(4) the state general fund appropriation;

(5) an optional voted levy on the community college district that
shftU must be submitted to the electorate in accordance with
general school election laws;

(6) all other income, revenue, balances, or reserves not
restricted by a source outside the conununity college district to
a specific purpose;

(7) income, revenue, balances, or reserves restricted by a source
outside the conununity college district to a specific purpose.
Student fees paid for community service courses as defined by
the board of regents shftH and revenue from th e 2-mill levy
imposed in [section 11 must be considered restricted to a specific
purpose;

(8) income from a political subdivision that is designated a

ne Complete Text of LEGISLATIVE REFERENDUM 109 (continued)

community college service region under 20-15-241."

Section 5. Section 20-16-205, MCA, is amended to read:
"20-16-205. Tuition rates. (1) Tuition may be charged to any
resident or nonresident of the state of Montana by the director of
any vocational -technical center at rates to be determined by the
board of regents and tho provioiono of oubooction (3) . The board
of regents shall prescribe permissible uses for any tuition
authorized.

(2) For the purposes of this section^ the eligibility of a student
for resident status shaH must be determined in the same manner
as that prescribed for use by the Montana university system,
except that those provisions referring to "high school graduates"
or "graduation from high school" shftH must be considered to
refer to a person who has attended school or who was in
attendance at a school.

(3) If an additional levy for a contor ia approved under 20 16
207, the board of rogento may charge on additional tuition
omount not to exoood $40 a quarter to a otudent at the center who
19 a rooidont of Montana but who io not a property taxpayer of
tho county or an owner of a vehicle rogiatorod within tho county
whore tho center ia locatod. "

Section 6. Repealer. Section 20-16-207, MCA, is repealed.

Section 7. Codification instruction. [Section 1] is intended to
be codified as an integral part of Title 15, chapter 10, part 1 , and
the provisions of Title 15, chapter 10, part 1, apply to (section
!]•

Section 8. Submission to electorate. The question of whether
this act will become effective shall be submitted to the qualified
electors of Montana at the primary election to be held in June
1992 by printing on the ballot the full title of this act and the
following:

D FOR imposing a levy of 2 mills for the support and
maintenance of vocational and technical education.

D AGAINST imposing a levy of 2 mills for the support and
maintenance of vocational and technical education.

Section 9. Effective date ~ applicability. If approved by the
electorate, [this act] is effective December 31, 1992, and applies
to tax years beginning after December 31, 1992.

The Complete Text of LEGISLATIVE REFERENDUM 110

AN ACT CREATING A TREASURE STATE ENDOWMENT
PROGRAM; CREATING THE TREASURE STATE
ENDOWMENT FUND WITHIN THE COAL SEVERANCE
TAX TRUST FUND; PROVIDING THAT ONE-HALF OF
THE ANNUAL REVENUE THAT WOULD OTHERWISE BE
DEPOSITED IN THE COAL SEVERANCE TAX
PERMANENT FUND BE DEPOSITED IN THE
ENDOWMENT FUND; AUTHORIZING THE USE OF
INTEREST FROM THE ENDOWMENT FUND FOR
GRANTS, DEBT RETIREMENT, AND LOANS TO LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS; TRANSFERRING $10 MILLION FROM
THE PERMANENT FUND TO THE ENDOWMENT FUND;
EXPANDING THE COAL SEVERANCE TAX BOND
PROGRAM; SUBMITTING THE CREATION OF THE
PROGRAM TO THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS OF
MONTANA; AND AMENDING SECTIONS 17-5-701 AND 17-
5-703, MCA.

STATEMENT OF INTENT

A statement of intent is necessary for [this act] because [section
6] delegates rulemaking authority to the department of natural
resources and conservation and to the department of commerce.
It is the intent of the legislature that in adopting rules to

implement the prioritization of projects, the agencies shall use the
rules established for determining priorities for water development
projects as guidelines. The department of commerce should use
its existing procedures for determining the local governments that
are eligible for financing as a guide in adopting rules to
implement the treasure state endowment program. In adopting
rules to implement [this act], the departments shall take into
consideration any coordination between [this act] and the coal
severance tax school bond contingency loan fund.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE
OF MONTANA:

Section 1. Treasure state endowment program created -
definitions. (1) There is a treasure state endowment program that
consists of:

(a) the treasure state endowment fund established in 17-5-703;
and

(b) the infrastructure portion of the coal severance tax bond
program provided for in 17-5-701(2).

(2) Interest from the treasure state endowment fund and from
proceeds of the sale of bonds under 17-5-701(2) may be used to
provide financial assistance for local government infrastructure
projects under [sections 1, 2, and 5 through 8].

ne Complete Text of LEGISLATIVE REFERENDUM 110 (continued)

(3) As used in [sections 1, 2, and 5 through 8], the following
definitions apply:

(a) "Infrastructure projects" means:
(i) drinking water systems;

(ii) wastewater treatment;

(iii) sanitary sewer or storm sewer systems;

(iv) solid waste disposal and separation systems, including site

acquisition, preparation, or monitoring; or

(v) bridges.

(b) "Lxjcal government" means an incorporated city or town, a
county, or a consolidated local government.

(c) "Treasure state endowment fund" means the coal severance
tax infrastructure endowment fund established in 17-5-703(l)(b).

(d) "Treasure state endowment program" means the local
government infrastructure investment program established in
subsection (1).

Section 2. Purpose. The purpose of the treasure state
endowment program is to assist local governments in funding
infrastructure projects that will:

(1) create jobs for Montana residents;

(2) promote economic growth in Montana by helping to finance
the necessary infrastructure;

(3) encourage local public facility improvements;

(4) create a partnership between the state and local governments
to make necessary public projects affordable;

(5) support long-term, stable economic growth in Montana;

(6) protect future generations from undue fiscal burdens caused
by financing necessary public works;

(7) coordinate and improve infrastructure financing by federal,
state, local govenmient, and private sources; and

(8) enhance the quality of life and protect the health, safety, and
welfare of Montana citizens.

Section 3. Section 17-5-701, MCA, is amended to read:
"17-5-701. State of Montana coal severance tax bonds. This
part provides for the issuance of state of Montana coal severance
tax bonds (also referred to as coal severance tax bonds in this
part) toi

(1) finance water resource development projects and activities in
the state designed to provide, during and after extensive coal
mining, a healthy economy, the alleviation of social and
economic impacts created by coal development, and a clean and
healthful environment for present and future generationsi_and
(D finance loans to local governments for infrastructure projects
under [sections 1 . 2. and 5 through 8]."

Section 4. Section 17-5-703, MCA, is amended to read:
"17-5-703. Coal severance tax trust funds. (1) The trust
established under Article IX, section 5, of the Montana
constitution shall be composed of the following funds:

(a) a coal severance tax bond fund into which the
constitutionally dedicated receipts from the coal severance tax
shall be deposited;

(b) a treasure state endowment fund;

(c) a clean coal technology demonstration fund;
(e){d} a coal severance tax permanent fund; and
(d)(ei a coal severance tax income fund.

(2) The state treasurer shall determine the amount necessary to

meet all principal and interest payments on bonds payable from

the coal severance tax bond fund on the next two ensuing

semiannual payment dates and retain that amount in the coal

severance tax bond fund.

(3) Beginning on July 1, 1991, and ending on June 30, 1997,

the state treasurer shall from time to time transfer from the

excess amount in the coal severance tax bond fund $5 million a

year to the clean coal technology demonstration fund and , except

as provided in subsection (4). shall transfer any remaining

amount to the coal severance tax permanent fiind.

(4^ (a) Beginning on July I. 1993. and ending on June 30. 2013.

the state treasurer shall:

(i) from time to time transfer to the treasure state endowment

fund all money in the coal severance tax bond fund except the

amount necessary to meet all principal and interest payments on

bonds payable from the coal severance tax bond fund on the next

two ensuing semiannual payment dates; and

(ii) from time to time transfer to the coal severance tax

permanent fund 50% of the principal transferred from the coal

severance tax bond fund to the treasure state endowment fund in

the preceding year.

(b) The state treasurer shall annually transfer to a treasure state

endowment special revenue account the amount of interest

earnings required to meet the obligations of the state that are

payable from the account in accordance with [section 61. Interest

earnings not transferred to the treasure state endowment special

revenue account must be retained in the treasure state endowment

fund. "

Section 5. Types of nnancial assistance available. The

legislature shall provide for and make available to local
governments the following types of financial assistance under
[sections 1, 2, and 5 through 8]:

(1) matching grants for local infrastructure projects;

(2) aimual debt service subsidies on local infrastructure projects;
and

(3) loans from the proceeds of coal severance tax bonds at a
subsidized interest rate.

Section 6. Priorities for projects - procedure - rulemaking.

(1) The department of commerce must receive proposals for
projects from local governments as defined in [section l(3)(b)].
The department shall work with a local government in preparing
cost estimates for a project. In reviewing project proposals, the
department may consult with other stote agencies with expertise
pertinent to the proposal. The department shall prepare and
submit a list containing the recommended projects and the
recommended form of financial assistance for each project to the
governor, prioritized pursuant to subsection (2). The governor
shall review the projects recommended by the department of
natural resources and conservation under Title 85, chapter 1, part
6, and shall submit a list of recommended projects and the
recommended financial assistance to the legislature.

(2) In preparing recommendations under subsection (1),
preference must be given to projects based on the following order
of priority:

(a) projects that solve urgent and serious public health or safety
problems;

(b) projects that enable local governments to meet state or

The Complete Text of LEGISLATIVE REFERENDUM 110 (continued)

federal health or safety standards;

(c) projects that enable local governments to obtain fiinds from
sources other than the funds provided under [sections 1 , 2, and
5 through 8];

(d) projects that provide long-term, full-time job opf>ortimities
for Montanans;

(e) projects that provide public facilities necessary for the
expansion of a business that has a high potential for financial
success;

(f) projects that result in a benefit to the public commensurate
with the amount of financial assistance;

(g) projects that reflect greater need for financial assistance than
other projects;

(h) projects that maintain the tax base or that do not discourage
expansion of the tax base; and

(i) projects that are high local priorities and have strong
community support.

(3) After the review required by subsection (1), the projects
must be approved by the legislature.

(4) The department of natural resources and conservation shall
adopt rules to implement the prioritization and recommendation
of projects to be financed pursuant to 17-5-701.

(5) Except as provided in subsection (4), the department of
commerce shall adopt rules necessary to implement the treasure
state endowment program.

Section 7. Infrastructure endowment fund to continue. The

treasure state endowment fund created in 17-5-703 must be
maintained even though transfers to the fund from the coal
severance tax bond fund cease on June 30 of the 20th year
following the initial transfer to the fund, as provided in [section
10]. Interest earnings from the treasure state endowment fund
must continue to be paid annually to the treasure state
endowment special revenue account as provided in 17-5-
703(4)(b).

Section 8. Coal severance tax trust fund to remain inviolate.

[Sections 1, 2, and 5 through 10] do not authorize or permit the
expenditure of any part of the coal severance tax trust fund
created by Article IX, section 5, of the Montana constitution.

Section 9. Legislative implementation required. (1) The

legislature shall implement [this act] by amending or enacting all
legislation necessary to carry out the intent of [this act].

(2) If the process required under [section 6] has occurred, the
53rd legislature may approve projects.

(3) The 53rd legislature may authorize the issuance of bonds in
order to provide the maximum amount of initial funding for the
treasure state endowment program and shall take any action
necessary to prevent a negative arbitrage consequence.

Section 10. Transfer of coal severance tax money to treasure
state endowment fund. On July 1, 1993, $10 million is
transferred from the coal severance tax permanent fund to the
treasure state endowment fund and is dedicated for the purposes
provided in [this act].

Section 1 1 . Submission to electorate. The question of whether
this act will become effective shall be submitted to the qualified
electors of Montana at the primary election to be held in June
1992 by printing on the ballot the full title of this act and the
following:

n FOR creating the treasure state endowment fimd to provide
local governments coal severance tax trust fimd interest for
water, sewer, solid waste, and bridge projects.

D AGAINST creating the treasure state endowment fimd to
provide local governments coal severance tax trust fimd interest
for water, sewer, solid waste, and bridge projects.

What do I do when I get to the polls?

Voting is a simple procedure. There will be several people,
called election judges, at the polls to assist you.

Give your name to the first election judge, who will check for
your name on the registration list and ask you to sign your
name as it is listed in the book. You will then be directed to a
voting booth.

You will be able to vote on either the Democratic or
Republican ballot at this election. You may only vote one of
these ballots.

Return both ballots to the election judge at the ballot box,
indicating which ballot you marked and which you did not.
The judge will place the voted ballot in the voted ballot box
and the other ballot in the immarked ballot box. That is all
there is to it!

What if I can't vote on election day?

You can vote an absentee ballot if you cannot get to the polls
because you: 1) expect to be absent from your precinct or
county on election day, 2) are physically incapacitated, 3)
suffer from chronic illness or general ill health, or 4) have a
health emergency between 5 p.m. on May 29 and noon on
election day.

If you qualify for an absentee ballot, contact your county
election administrator (usually the clerk and recorder) to
request an absentee ballot application. Absentee ballots may be
requested starting March 19 for the primary and August 20 for
the general election. Absentee ballots will be accepted up to
noon the day before the election.

How can I find out if I am registered?

If you have voted since that last presidential election, you are
still registered to vote. If you are not sure if or where you are
registered, you should contact your county election
administrator.

The registration deadline for the primary is May 4 and for the
general election, the deadline is October 5.

Who is eligible to register

Anyone who, on election day, is a U.S. citizen, at least
eighteen years of age, and a resident of Montana and the
county for thirty days may register to vote.

The voter registration card must be completed and signed
before a witness before being turned in to the election
administrator. The witness can be another registered voter
from your county, a deputy registrar, or the election
administrator.

Additional copies of this Voter Information Pamphlet are available upon request from your county election administrator
or the Secretary of State

This document printed on recycled paper.

400,000 copies of this public document were published at an estimated cost of $0.05 per copy, for a total of $20,000, which includes $20,000 for printing.
Distribution costs paid for by county governments.

COUNTY ELECTION ADMINISTRATOR
County Courthouse

DO NOT FORWARD

gNameers family

50 ii MI550ULA
HELENA

U.S. Postage

PAID

Bulk Rate

Permit No. 199

Helena, MT

59624

HT E-9i>0i